Let’s just say the Navy isn’t a big fan of small ships. It would rather build big ships. Part of that might be empire building (it’s more prestigious to command a big ship than a little one) but most of it is that, overall, a bigger ship is more versatile than a smaller one.

But every generation or so, the Navy is reminded that it needs small ships for niche taskings. Such needs have given rise to the Ashville class gunboats, the Pegasus class hydrofoils, and the Cyclone class patrol boats (known as “PC’s for “Patrol, Coastal”).

Conceived in the late 1980s, and built in the early/mid 1990s, the Cyclones suffered the same fate as previous small ship classes. Production numbers were cut, Big Navy wasn’t terribly willing to support them either operationally or in terms of maintenance, and they quickly faded into the background. Not having any real idea what to use them for, the Navy even decommissioned some, and foisted them onto the Coast Guard. The Coasties, always desperate for hulls, took them, but they were hardly fans of them. Designed for a niche naval role, they were expensive and ill suited for Coast Guard missions.

Adapted from a foreign design, the Cyclone class PCs were originally intended to support SEAL team and other Naval Special Warfare operations, replacing earlier small craft. But at 170’ and some 300 tons, they proved to be a touch too large for that mission, and a touch too small for most others.

Orphaned, and programatically languishing, a funny thing happened on the way to being retired.

War with Iraq (and tensions today with Iran) called for a much greater than normal naval presence in the Persian Gulf. Obviously, carrier strike groups, amphibious groups, cruisers, and destroyers were sent to add raw combat power.

But a large part of what our Navy needed to do was far more mundane. Simply keeping track of the untold thousands of dhows and other small vessels of the Gulf and ensuring that they were not engaged in activities such as covert planting of naval mines, or ferrying arms and people to insurgent groups meant that many of these small vessels needed to be stopped, boarded, searched, and tracked. While a billion dollar destroyer can do this mission, it’s a bit of overkill. Many times, the small PC craft were perfectly suited for such a role. And so the Combatant Commander for CENTCOM asked for more. 5th Fleet, the Navy fleet responsible for the region, responded by forward basing several Cyclones, and rotating crews as needed. Unfortunately, the problem with swapping crews was one every landllord was familiar with-renters never care for a property as much as owners.

Further, by this time, the PCs, designed for a 15 year life, were getting long in the tooth. The original M38Mod1 25mm gun mount was not terribly accurate, nor, when exposed to the marine environment, terribly reliable. The ship’s small Rigid Hulled Inflatable Boat was difficult to deploy and recover via a crane. And the hulls and engines were tired and damaged from wear and tear.

But the demand from CENTCOM for PC support was such that the Navy has given them a new lease on life.

The ships loaned to the Coast Guard have been brought back into Navy service.* The four Paxman diesels that drive the PCs at up to 35 knots have been refurbished. The hulls have been repaired and overhauled.

Additionally, improvements to the weapons systems are underway. The forward Mk38 is scheduled to be replaced with a Mk51 gun mount, using a navalized version of the M230 30mm gun from the AH-64 Apache helicopter. The MAWS universal mount may also be used to mount one of several short range guided missile systems to further enhance the PCs combat capability.

The ship class intended to replace the Cyclones, the LCS, has grown to a bloated monstrosity, and so the PCs will likely have to serve considerably longer than anyone had ever anticipated.

8 responses to “The Cyclone Class PC”

The perils of not having an editor- I forgot to mention that during overhaul, the class has been extended by about 8 feet, and a stern ramp has been added to facilitate easier deployment and recovery of the ship’s 11m RHIBs.

A similar stretch/ramp rebuild of the Coast Guard’s 110′ cutters was a disaster, with the few ships rebuilt to 123′ standard being structurally deficient. That doesn’t appear to be a problem with the Cyclones.

Excuse me for not being up on naval subjects, But.
In that video those looked like control cables feeding up to that Mk51.
Being exposed like that, I would consider them to highly vulnerable to damage or opposing fire.

It’s probably both control and power cables. And you have a valid point. But please note that installation was three years ago. A prototype installation, if you will, and mostly to determine any areas that needed improvement. I’d presume that any permanent installation would have a slightly less vulnerable routing for the cable. On the other hand, the PCs have essentially no armor (small ships are very weight sensitive), so even an internal cable run would offer little protection against anything but small arms fire.

Ahh, CROWS… I haven’t used them live but consistently hear mixed reviews on them, ranging from awesome accuracy to nightmare to reload, etc. We are supposed to be fielding them on the tank fleet, but I am not sure when. We already have them in our tank AGTS (Advanced Gunnery Training System , the replacement for the old UCOFT), so have to fire it in the simulator all the time. Apparently it completely blocks forward vision from the TC’s hatch, though this is not apparent in the simulator….

Help Support Bring the Heat with a donation

Notice:

This site is in no way affiliated with the Department of Defense, Department of the Army, the Department of the Air Force, the National Guard Bureau or NASA and nothing said herein should be considered to have any official sanction by those (or any other) agencies.
The opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent those of any other person or entity.